Keep us posted on your findings. That is a very dramatic change from where you had it lol.

Oh yeah, checking my last save before that I definitely adjusted very incorrectly. I think i brain farted and hit it with a negative adjust in the lower end instead of a positive. I’ll have it fixed over the next few days, heading to VT for the weekend without my car.

I think it more represents throttle position, aka how much "air" you are calling for (indirectly, seems like it also takes into consideration how fast you are already going, air density and temp, etc), but for the most part, the more "pinned" my foot is on the pedal the higher the AFMv. value is.

Thanks, the reason i am asking is since i started calibrating i notice that i have skipped a few values, if i remember the stock AFM calibration shows 3 values per X, ie 1 - 1.50 - 1.75. Not really an in issue but i just wanted to understand this stuff better.

the mean line is a good determination on what to adjust until you get it close to 0, then I think it's best to look at the range of the data points and try to get them evenly surrounding 0%.

Obviously, the perfect mean line would float around 0%, but you also want to make sure you are controlling the extremes.

So let's say after a long datalog, at 2.2V your mean is almost 0%, but datapoints range from -10% to +5%. You would probably want to make the adjustment to try and get that min and max equal deviance from 0%. So you would trim that value to get the extremes close to -7% to +7%.

Not only do you want the mean line to be flat, you want the red blobby scatter to be symmetrical on the 0% line.

After I made all the necessary adjustments over the last week, I referred to this graph to make sure the values were smoothed out and the curve was a nice smooth "swoop" .

AFMSmoothing.jpg (200.78 KiB) Viewed 247 times

After hitting the curve with multiple range adjustments, some of the areas become choppy which I began to feel while accelerating. I did not get a before picture, but above is the after picture. Just look at what value the point that needs adjusting is, and make a gradual number change to the value in the table.

They dont state this in the help file so maybe hondata will chime in.... disabling l.trim should allow for a better calibration of the afm based on s.trim only. To me end result is end result but maybe this would improve the methods?

I was under the assumption that zeroing the l.trim limit would kick the cel when it moves off of zero.

It is worded that the trim limits that we can manipulate only limits when the warning code gets thrown....

They dont state this in the help file so maybe hondata will chime in.... disabling l.trim should allow for a better calibration of the afm based on s.trim only. To me end result is end result but maybe this would improve the methods?

I was under the assumption that zeroing the l.trim limit would kick the cel when it moves off of zero.

It is worded that the trim limits that we can manipulate only limits when the warning code gets thrown....

I have had to "re-baseline" before.

May in fact be a good idea for you....

Hopefully they chime in, I sent them an email earlier too, but no response yet.

I think maybe I got too nit-picky with the AFR adjustments and and lost the overall "smoothness" of the starting values?

Would adjusting AFRs cause more knocking if I am only getting it closer to the target 14.7?

Well from my understanding the afm values tie into what the computer algorithms determine as cylinder fill per stroke. So the short answer would be its possible but in theory if the trims are closing in to 0 and getting better that should be improving the accuracy of that value.

Well from my understanding the afm values tie into what the computer algorithms determine as cylinder fill per stroke. So the short answer would be its possible but in theory if the trims are closing in to 0 and getting better that should be improving the accuracy of that value.

that makes sense.

hmmm, wondering if I should revert back to the base 6+PSI map without fuel trim adjustments to see if the knock count is less or the same. I'm wondering if dialing in fuel trims is yielding more power than the base 6+PSI map and more adjustments need to be made in other places because of it? But I never changed the torque limits so.... i wouldn't think so.

sorry, thinking outloud. Is there a way to tag or @ hondata or spunkster so they can check this thread? I'm assuming they've put it on an ignore list since theres been so much back and forth on it lol.